Policy

Inefficiency in Toilet Construction

by

There have been a series of infographics that have been circulated to show that the NDA government has performed better than its political rival, the UPA. One of these images deals with the number of toilets constructed and the amount of money spent on toilet construction.

 

According to its own data, the NDA government has spent nearly 3.5 times more for construction of one toilet.

If the data is true, the NDA government has clearly done better on both counts. However, what the numbers betray is that the NDA has also spent more money per toilet, thus indicating inefficiency or worse. The UPA has spent Rs.1750 per toilet and the NDA has spent nearly 3.5 times more per toilet – Rs. 6176.

Quebec is getting TASMACs for Marijuana

by

Quebec is pulling a leaf out of Tamil Nadu’s playbook for legalising marijuana. Quebec will be procuring marijuana in bulk from six suppliers and then operating the entire supply chain. Quebec will not only levy an ‘excise’ tax, but also sell marijuana out of government-owned dispensaries. In other words, Canadians will be buying their weed from a Canadian style TASMAC!

Hydropothecary Corp, Canopy Growth and Aphria Inc are among six companies that have signed agreements with Quebec’s liquor board to supply the province with marijuana when Canada legalizes its recreational use this year, the companies said in separate statements on Wednesday.
…
Canada’s senate is set for a final vote on legalizing marijuana on June 7, with sales expected to start in the fall. Provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, plan to open government-run stores, while others such as Alberta and Saskatchewan will allow private ones. British Columbia plans to have both.

[The Globe and Mail, April 11, 2018]

Back in India, this is what a government dispensary of marijuana looks like. Canada must do better.

Government authorised Bhang shop, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, India.

Who made Xi move half-way across the country?

by

Ananth Krishnan points out that Xi Jinping’s decision to travel halfway across his own country to meet Narendra Modi (who had travelled completely out of his own country) for an informal summit in Wuhan is remarkable, and no one in Beijing expected it. It’s been quite a journey for their India policy, from threatening to order military attacks to perhaps ordering a six pack for a chillout session between the two leaders this month.

Were they really impressed by India’s resolute stance of not backing down at Doklam, of not signing up for the Belt and Road Initiative? Perhaps. What really made Xi travel halfway across his country is a man halfway across the world. A certain Mr Donald Trump. Washington is putting extreme pressure on Beijing on two counts: North Korea, and more importantly on trade.

It took Trump to remind Beijing that their projection of power ultimately relies on their economy, and that in turn relies on the goodwill of China’s trading partners. Most importantly, on the United States. A trade war will not only have unsettling effects on the Chinese economy in the short term, it can take the wind out of China’s economic sails in the longer term. The wise men in Beijing ought to have expected this. If they didn’t, then their wisdom is overrated. If they expected this, then they ought to have cautioned Xi Jinping against getting all on the front foot and antagonising India, Japan and Vietnam all at once. If they did and Xi didn’t heed their advice, then his astuteness is perhaps more limited than is made out to be.

In any case, India must expect that Xi’s front-footedness is China’s long-term strategy. Trump’s mercurial policy positions have caused Beijing to buy time and space by reaching out to India and Japan. The moment the pressure is off — for Trump can as quickly change his mind — it’s likely that Beijing will resume pushing the envelope again. New Delhi can certainly hope that Beijing has learned that it is not a good idea to antagonise your neighbours as you set out to confront your distant adversary. Yet if you were sitting in Beijing you might reckon it’s important to suppress your neighbour’s power to create trouble, before you confront your main adversary.

It is in India’s interests to have better relations with China and the United States than they have with each other. So the chillout at Wuhan is a good thing. Modi, however, must be keenly aware that a China reset in Delhi does not mean a India reset in Beijing. There’s nothing to indicate China’s fundamental approach towards India has changed. Or that it will change. For now all the chilling out is contingent on the extent and duration that the United States maintains pressure on China.

 

Déjà vu

by

India’s Aadhar is often compared to the Social Security Number system of the United States. Most of these comparisons are about how they are in use today.

The US SSN is necessary for you to draw a salary, open a bank account, it’s linked to your credit history, it’s linked to your taxes, tax waivers and a lot more. In India, it’s a similar set of linkages that is up for question at the Supreme court today.

But how did the SSN come into being in the first place?

The story is fascinating. NPR’s Planet Money podcast has an excellent episode on the Social Security Number:

A few things that jumped out:

The Social Security Number came into play in 1935, with the Social Security Act getting signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt. The original aim of the number was to track workers’ earnings through their career, such that they could receive appropriate social security benefits on retirement.

Europe said that it couldn’t be done. (Europe’s current extreme stances on data protection today are eerily reflective of similar sentiments)

The Americans decided to not use a fingerprint, because fingerprints had a criminal connotation, and the optics of hauling all workers in to get their fingerprints taken were… bad, to say the least.

The Number 666 is never used in the SSN!

Initially, people did not fully understand the need for secrecy with the SSN. Giant printed versions of social security cards, with the numbers intact, would be used in TV shows.

The SSN’s ambit gets expanded, starting 1943. The US Federal government started telling its other departments to not invent a new ID for any purpose, but use the SSN instead.

  • In 1962, it starts getting used for people to pay taxes.
  • Around the same time, it starts getting used for enrollment into Medicaid, a large healthcare programme.
  • In 1977, it’s used for distributing food stamps, or food subsidy.
  • In parallel, the number is being used by the Federal government and the military as personnel ID numbers.
  • In 1982, for loans from the federal government… and the list goes on. Driving license, Marriage registration, everywhere. And eventually, credit ratings.

The Social Security Administation did not have the legal authority to stop people from using the number for other purposes.

…and then these numbers got hacked.

History, it seems, often repeats itself.

EPFO Releases Payroll Data

by

The Employees Provident Fund Office has, for the first time, released data on payroll enrolment in India. This data shows, by age group, the number of enrolments with the office by month, and this is the first instance that we’re having such data being available.

While it would be easy to start those “data science machines” churning to process this data right away, a closer look suggests a more careful approach.

Screenshot source: Somesh Jha on Twitter https://twitter.com/someshjha7/status/989095752411570176?s=12

Firstly, the data for September 2017 for the 22-25 age group is clearly an error, being an order of magnitude lower than the number for the same age group in all subsequent months. Hopefully this will be corrected in a subsequent release.

Next, what explains the age bands? Why do we have 18-21 and 22-25 (4-year bands) and then a 3 year age band (26-28), and a 7-year age band (29-35)? And why is everyone in the 35+ age group put together into one band?

Then, the note attached to the data release states that this includes temporary employment as well. While the number of enrolments of temporary employees might be low, it would have been far more useful to have that data separately.

Notwithstanding all this, the publication of this data is welcome, since the Indian policy environment is so data-poor that any new data release is welcome! It is fair to expect that these errors will get corrected in time, and this might yet become a great source of data on formal employment in India.

 

Reservations don’t affect bureaucratic performance

by

Bhavnani and Lee have a counterintuitive insight.

the performance of bureaucrats hired through affirmative action is similar to those who were not, is striking within the context of the polemical debate on affirmative action, in which strong claims are often made for the positive or negative effects of affirmative action. We find that reservations have neither led to hiring of officers unable to perform their jobs or led to a dramatic change in institutional output, at least for one important government program.

They use the provisioning of MGNREGA at the district level as a proxy for bureaucratic performance. Their major finding is that MGNREGA provisioning does not worsen in districts where the IAS officer is a beneficiary of reservation.

Two possibilities arise if this result is reflective of the reality. One, UPSC exam performance does not reflect aptitude for governance. Or two, getting into the IAS is so competitive that despite reservations, efficiency of those with lower ranks is not compromised.

 

India’s China Reset ≠ China’s India Reset

by

Global Times carried an op-ed on 12th April applauding India’s reported China Reset policy.

With regard to their ties in the past three years, many Indian media outlets and scholars believe New Delhi has gone astray with its China policy. Following a misjudgment of China’s development and the international landscape, the Indian government chose to confront China and consequently damaged India’s own development.

In typical Global Times style, the op-ed didn’t miss a chance to take a dig at India:

The rise of China actually constitutes an opportunity for India instead of posing a threat. China’s GDP is nearly five times that of India, so the two are at different levels of economic development. New Delhi can hardly expect to exert powerful leverage against China. The primary priority for India is mulling over how to take a ride on China’s development and realize its dream of national rejuvenation.

The bluster aside, what should be clear to us is that a China Reset in New Delhi does not imply an India Reset in Beijing. In fact, China’s recent foreign policy conduct shows that the reverse is likely to be true. With every Indian acquiescence to China’s aggression, China will escalate provocations.

Ask Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, if you are still in doubt.